The Supreme Court issued an order denying an application to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of a district court’s final judgment enjoining the enforcement of a Texas voting statute. The statute requires voters to produce identification before they vote. Business law students learn about injunctions (in this case, the court’s power to stop a party from acting) as a equitable remedy.

Congressman Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, sued Governor Perry and Texas Secretary of State John Steen in federal court, challenging the enforcement of the voter ID law, named SB 14. Veasey claimed that the law had the potential of preventing hundreds of thousands of people from voting. The strict Texas statute “requires the state’s estimated 13.6 million registered voters to show one of seven kinds of photo identification” before casting their ballot. Defendants responded SB 14 was designed to prevent voter fraud and argued voter ID laws were already approved by the Supreme Court in an Indiana case.

After a hearing, the district court agreed with Veasey that enforcement of the law “may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.” The district court determined the strict Texas statute was unconstitutional and enjoined defendants from forcing voters to produce ID. The Fifth Circuit issued a stay of the order, meaning defendants were temporarily permitted to enforce the law. The Supreme Court denied Veasey’s application to vacate the stay pending appeal. Led by Justice Ginsberg, three Justices wrote a scathing dissent (and in a rare circumstance, later corrected) expressing disagreement with the court’s decision not to vacate the stay.

Voting rights are analyzed under strict scrutiny. As of now, voters in Texas must show proper ID before they are allowed to vote in the midterm elections on November 4th.

Posted by Shanice Cooper.

In an article by Forbes Magazine entitled, Fake IRS Agent Scam Targets Public, Even Feds, while Identity Theft Tax Fraud is Rampant, Robert Wood outlines the seemingly growing issue of identity theft. This particular article takes a close look at how horrible identity thieves are especially during the inevitable tax season.

Identity theft according to Wikipedia, occurs when someone uses another’s personal identifying information, like their name, social security number, address or credit card number, without their permission or knowledge, to commit fraud or other injurious crimes. Identity thieves use the tax season to their advantage and flourish in it by secretly getting individuals’ personal information. How do they do this? One way is by simply calling an unsuspecting person and asking for their social security number, and bank account data: “The plan is frighteningly simple. Steal Social Security numbers, file tax returns showing false refund claims, and have the refunds electronically deposited.” The person doing the crime would call an individual and impersonate a government official; they would intimidate the person into giving up their personal information. “There is also a massive phone scam in which an impostor claiming to work for the IRS calls and intimidates you. You need to pay right away, and many do.” The article gave two popular ways in which identity thieves often steal information, but there are other ways.

In most cases, the taxpayer finds out that their social security number has been tampered with once they attempt to file a real tax return. However, by the time most people realize that they have been dealing with an imposter, the thief is long gone and often times untraceable. This tax season alone has had over 100,000 people affected by tax scams and is going down as the worst year for scams. “[T]he Treasury inspector general has already received more than 366,000 complaints, more than 3,000 people have been conned out of a total of $15.5 million.” These are outstanding numbers of innocent people who are being victimized by identity theft and tax scamming.

In conclusion, I think identity theft is horrible and no one should have to worry about having their information tampered. I personally know of individuals who have been affected by identity theft and have had to go through incredibly long processes to recover their credit. “In January 2015, a Maryland woman and former bank employee, was sentenced to 87 months in prison for her role in a massive and sophisticated identity theft . . . seeking refunds of at least $40 million.” Once the fraudster is caught they are faced with a number of felonies. In the end, committing the crime is not worth it.

Shanice is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jessica Page.

In 2008 and 2009, there was a huge salmonella outbreak traced to peanut butter produced by the Peanut Corporation of America. Nine people died from this incident and 700 were reported ill. The $30 million company was shut down and liquidated after the incident and the CEO, Stewart Parnell, was indicted and prosecuted. In late September, he was sentenced 28 years in prison.

What’s intriguing about this article is the comparison to the GM faulty ignition case. In this particular incident, the defect caused 124 deaths and over 200 injuries. GM has recently settled for $900 million and a three year prosecution agreement. The major difference between the two cases though – indictment of employees. Preet Bharara, one of the best federal prosecutors in Manhattan, explained, “it is unusually difficult to prosecute auto industry executives” and because of the national auto safety laws, there is a call for punishing the corporation as a whole, rather than any one individual.

The main conviction in the salmonella case is the fact that Parnell committed fraud by “knowingly introducing tainted peanut butter paste into interstate commerce.” The fact of the matter is though, there were GM executives who knew about the faulty ignition but failed to report it within the five-day span. The company itself was fined as a corporation for this matter, but there was not specific indictment of GM executives. The real issue at hand is how much harder it is to prosecute auto executives when it comes to cases of product liability. There is currently a bill that many senators are working to pass that would make this process easier and hold executives accountable, if they were knowledgeable of the faulty auto product or provided false statements to consumers, as GM did. This could change future product liability cases within the auto industry and as Senator Blumenthal stated, “one sentence like Parnell’s [within the automotive industry] would change auto safety dramatically and enduringly.”

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Ivanna Klics.

There has been quite a ruckus at Wells Fargo as they made headlines for causing fraudulent transactions that have not been authorized by the customers themselves. Wells Fargo is being accused for creating banking and credit card accounts without the permission of its customers. Who are the customers more to blame then the CEO, John Stumpf; however, in his defense, he is not capable of overlooking every branch in the bank. Stumpf’s leaders have not only stepped out of their comfort in the company but the reputation of the company, as well as opening up the door to a criminal investigation case.

The investigation has put the company to shame. Stumpf appears to be clueless of what has been going on literally right under his nose. Because it is almost impossible for these events to occur overnight, management should have known about it for a long time. Whether Stumpf admits it or not, Charles Gasparino stated “he and the bank will still face numerous civil and criminal inquiries for years to come.”

Although the company does not mean all harm, Wells Fargo is still one of the most profitable banks worldwide; however the company’s perception has had a dramatic change. Currently the company is facing a congressional investigation, and who knows if they will be able to build back their reputation.

Ivanna is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Many companies provide workers with cell phones for company business. And they expect that their workers respect its proper use. But companies should afford their workers the same respect in terms of privacy.

In a recent report, a woman was fired for deleting an app her employer used to track her movements. She sued for invasion of privacy–a concept covered in Business Law class. Her employer used the phone to follow her off-hours, akin to a “‘prisoner’s ankle bracelet.’”

But the employer is not all wrong. As a traveling saleswoman, her employer had an interest in knowing her whereabouts, however, where they crossed the line was continuing to monitor her off-hours. Employees were not permitted to disable any GPS tracking on the phone and they had to keep it on 24/7.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, the government is prohibited from invading someone’s privacy without probable cause and a warrant. The present case deals with the private sector, however. The woman probably had no right to delete the app, because it is company property since it is on a company phone; however, she still could have disabled the phone off-hours and not be in any trouble. Under California law, where she lives, employers are prohibited from following her in this manner when she is off-duty. Many other states have the same prohibitions.

One convenient way (and perhaps the woman in this case could have used) of stopping someone from using a cell phone as a GPS tracker is to put the cell phone in the refrigerator. Apparently, that will block the signals coming in and going out.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged three software company founders with insider trading and forced them to disgorge $5.8 million in illegal profits, penalties and interest.  Insider trading occurs when people in high levels of management trade company securities based on non-public information.

Lawson Software’s co-chairman, Herbert Richard Lawson, tipped his brother and a family friend (both retired from the company in 2001) about the probable sale of the company to Infor Global Solutions, a privately held software provider.  While negotiations were occurring, the media learned of a possible merger.  Lawson Software’s stock price began to climb based on analyst reports of a possible bidding war with more than one company considering acquiring Lawson Software.  The reports were predicated on an article indicating that Lawson Software conducted a “market check” through its financial advisor to see if there were any other companies interested in a merger.

But Infor Global was the only company interested in buying, as the market check produced “little-to-no interest.”  Lawson Software notified the public that Info Global offered to pay $11.25 per share, however, the media was still reporting incorrectly that other companies were interested in acquiring the company and that the merger would likely be for $15-16 per share.  Those companies listed in the media reports were actually the same companies that declined purchasing Lawson Software in the market check investigation.

The SEC charged defendants both knew the reports were false and Infor Global would not increase its offer any more than $11.25.  But in face of that knowledge, Lawson, his brother and his friend sold shares of the company for approximately $1 over Infor Global’s price, pocketing millions.  Defendants agreed to disgorge the profits and “to the entry of final judgments enjoining them from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.”

An associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated, “Richard Lawson conveyed material information that was contrary to what was being publicly reported, and his brother and friend made a windfall when they subsequently sold their company shares at inflated prices.”  He further stated, “When news surfaces about the possibility of a merger and details of the media reports are incorrect, it is illegal for insiders who know the true facts to trade and profit.”

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

Volkswagen, one of the European auto giants, admitted to “installing defeat device software in 11 million cars.” These “defeat device software” lets carmakers to change performance settings of the engines before a pollution test. These software would not only switch the performance settings of an engine but also detect when “they were being tested for nitrogen oxide emissions.” The installation of such defeat device rose a huge debate as to whether or not Volkswagen’s “emissions-test trickery” is a violation of European testing rules. The question at hand as described by Paul Willis, top Volkswagen official in Europe, was “whether the software officially constituted a defeat device” under European Union regulations.

The Volkswagen scandal, not only questioned whether Volkswagen is cheating or not, but questioned strongly Europe’s permissive testing practices and the compatibility of American and European auto regulations. This scandal led to Trans-Atlantic trade talks to rapidly increase so the United States and European nations can agree to a mutual auto regulation rules. In Europe “the setting of the engine and of the vehicle’s controls shall be those prescribed by the manufacturer;” making Volkswagen alteration of engine settings not a clear cut violation of European rules. But what makes the debate become such a big issue is that roughly 11 million Volkswagen vehicles carry the software, which about 500,000 are in the United States alone. This can cause Volkswagen to lose billions of dollars despite the penalty enforcements by auto regulators in Europe are very passive and rare.

Volkswagen came out by stating they are “committed [themselves] to fixing the vehicles.” Volkswagen is being comprehensible and trying to fix the issue that they commenced. As stated by Ms. Caudet, “European legislation implies that a vehicle must use the same engine setting during the regulatory emission test and in real driving,” which would make Volkswagen’s actions a violation against European auto regulations. The situations at hand continued to cause tension when the Environmental Protection Agency discovered that Volkswagen used another defeat device in some larger cars and sport utility vehicles that had not previously been implicated” making the cost to fix the issue grow substantially. In the end, the European system is known for its loopholes, for “allowing automakers to test preproduction vehicles that will never be sold” but actions need to be done so auto regulation rules in Europe and the United States, through the Trans-Atlantic agreement, can become more enforced. The “phony system of testing” as described by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, must be improved and by “simply making the road emission tests easier to pass,” is simply not the right step by the European government.

Michael is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Los Angeles will pay 24 million dollars to two men who spent decades in prison for crimes they did not commit. In one case, lawyers and a team of students from Loyola Law School challenged a key witness’s testimony. In 1979, Kash Delano Register was charged with the armed robbery and murder of Jack Sasson, 78, after eyewitness testimony placed him at the scene at the time of the shooting. The witness told police she heard gunshots and she saw Register fleeing the scene. The witness selected Register out of a photo lineup, but her sisters told police that her story was untrue. No murder weapon was recovered and no fingerprints were found. Based solely on this witness’s testimony, a jury found Register guilty and he spent 34 years in prison.

The witness’s sister testified she tried to tell a detective that her sister had lied, but in response, the investigator allegedly put a finger to his lips indicating she should keep quiet about it. Her other sister told the police that she was lying, but even her pleas were ignored. Register’s attorneys claimed that the witness selected him under the threat of being prosecuted for credit card forgery and a recent theft if she failed to choose someone out of the lineup.

In the other case, Bruce Lisker was accused of murdering his mother. “At the time of the murder, Lisker, who had a reputation for fighting with his mother and a history of drug abuse, told police he saw her lying in the foyer and broke into the home to help her. They did not believe him.” During a hearing challenging the conviction, lawyers undermined or disproved key elements of the prosecution’s case, including that a bloody shoe print that could not have been made by Lisker’s shoes. His attorneys claimed “that the lead detective ignored evidence that Lisker’s friend may have been a possible suspect.”

In every arrest and criminal prosecution, someone’s liberty is at stake, and these cases illustrate the importance that prosecutors and police get it right. Money can always be replaced. But no one can ever get back all those years lost in prison, as a result of being falsely accused.

Posted by Bailey Obetz.

A contract is an agreement that can be enforced in court; it is formed by two or more parties, each of whom agrees to perform or to refrain from performing some act now or in the future. For a contract to be enforced something of value must be exchanged by all parties involved. Other elements that are considered in determining if a contract is enforceable are meeting of the minds, duration, and value of things exchanged. Meeting of minds is merely a phrase used in contract law that describes the intentions — a mutual understanding in the formation of the contract. The element of duration refers to the length of time it will take for the parties will complete their part of the contract. Confusion and interferences of duration can disrupt the meeting of the minds regarding the contract. The consideration element is something of value received or promised such as money. The best way to avoid hindering enforceability of a contract is to make all provisions clear and be sure they are understood by all parties involved.

Many times a dispute arises when there is a promise of future performance and in many cases it is uncertain if any contract exists at all. This article recommends that the best way to ensure an enforceable contract is to hire an attorney. Many future problems can be avoided if an attorney is hired and creates a detailed agreement. Also, an attorney can help a party avoid creating illegal or unenforceable provisions in a contract. Contracts are particularly important in the business atmosphere because they can enhance or break relationships that business men/women encounter on a daily basis.

Bailey is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Healthcare providers, small business, and individuals have filed antitrust lawsuits against Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They allege the 37 independently-owned companies that make up the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association are colluding to avoid competition, raise prices on premiums, and clamp down on payments to providers. Plaintiffs are seeking class action status.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield covers about a third of the nation. In the 1930s, doctors provided insurance under the Blue Shield name and hospitals used Blue Cross. Eventually, the names were trademarked and now companies that use the names operate within an exclusive territory–many in a single state.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, defendant says “its licensing deals simply codify trademark rights that date back decades and ‘do not constitute an agreement to do anything unlawful.’” They claim their model has been around for long time and has withstood government scrutiny. But plaintiffs contend this is cartel-like behavior. The model stifles competition and leads to inflated premiums.

The case will pit antitrust law against trademark rights. Plaintiffs may have a point, especially since at least in one area, California, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans “compete directly against one another . . . where Anthem Blue Cross battles Blue Shield of California.” That fact appears to cut against defendants’ contention that the deals among licensees are only made to protect trademarks.

A district court judge has declined to dismiss the case, ruling plaintiffs “‘have alleged a viable market-allocation scheme.’”